Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You didn't read the book But. You are just mimicking what people are saying. And you call this good scientific investigation? I don't think so. If he did say something you disagree with, at least try to put it in context. That's the least you should do. Could it be you are too quick to condemn before you understand what the author is trying to explain?
p. 116 He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent
nerve ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds,
tastes, touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation.
|
Oh yes, I read this several times before. He's wrong. Objectively, demonstrably wrong. There are afferent nerve endings in the eye, just as there are in the ear.
I know that you're trying to find some interpretation of that passage that's correct, but there is none. He's just wrong.